Download PDF
The claimant, by a General Form of Complaint filed on 13th October, 2014 accompanied by the Statement of Facts, Claimant’ Written Statement on Oath, List of Witnesses and List of Documents, approached the Court for the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant is still subsisting, same having not been terminated or determined. 2. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to all her salaries, emoluments and other benefits that may have accrued to her office and status in the service of the defendant. 3. An order of court directing the defendant to compute release and pay over to the claimant all her salaries, emoluments and other fringe benefits that may have accrued to the claimant in her position in service of the defendant from August, 2010 till date and continuously so until her appointment is determined or she is retired in the service of the defendant in accordance with the law. 4. An order that the defendant pay interest on held over salaries, emoluments and other fringe benefits at 25% prevailing bank interest rate per month to the claimant. 5. Cost of this action to be assessed at #200,000.00. 6. In the alternative, the claimant claim against the defendant #15 Million general damages for breach of contract of employment. The Claimant’s Case Claimant was given appointment by the defendant on 20th July, 2010 as Messenger/Cleaner and on a salary of #293,049.06 per annum, i.e. CONTISS 1 step 1. The claimant’s salary continued to run from August, 2010 till date yet the defendant does not direct or allow the claimant to collect her salary over the years. The claimant in response filed their STATEMENT OF DEFENCE on 12th February, 2015 and dated same day. The defendant averred that claimant is not her employee and has never been employed by the defendant at any time whatsoever and never interviewed the claimant. Rather, that the defendant has been battling employment and admission racketeering whereby fake admissions and employment letters are issued by unscrupulous fraudsters upon payment of certain amount of money. Furthermore, that when the defendant discovered the scam, the defendant’s Governing Council at a special meeting held on 24/10/2014 and 25/10/2014 revoked all the purported employment directing all recipients of such fake employment letters to submit them to the defendant’s Principal Assistant Registrar (Junior Establishment). The defendant stated that the claimant was never deployed and there is no file of the claimant kept at the defendant’s Establishment Division to enable the claimant be assigned any specific work, thus, claimant could not perform her work very creditably, diligently, competently and honestly as she claimed. The defendant denied that account opening with UniCal Micro Finance Bank and registration with the UniCal Medical Centre is not among requirements to be satisfied by any employee of the defendant as UniCal Micro Finance Bank and UniCal Medical Centre are both open to members of the public. The defendant further averred that claimant not being employed by the defendant is not entitled to salary or any emolument and that Leadway Pension Manager is not an agent of the defendant, of which whatever transpired between claimant and Leadway Pension is personal to them as defendant is not privy. The defendant also averred that there is no contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant from the outset therefore, there is nothing to determine or terminate. The claimant in response filed a REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMETN OF DEFENCE on 10th March, 2015 and dated same day. The claimant stated that she was duly employed through a Letter of Appointment dated 20/7/2010 by the defendant and that the purported employment revocation letter dated 24/10/2014 and 25/10/2014 is only to the knowledge of the defendant as claimant was not issued any of those letters. Maintaining that she had worked for the defendant for more than 4 (four) months until she was requested to tender her employment letter for updating. Furthermore, that she was assigned specific work as Messenger/Cleaner as clearly stated on the face of the appointment letter by the defendant. That her Letter of Appointment was genuinely issued to her by the defendant through the Registrar, Dr. (Mrs.) Julia D. Omang and that there was acceptance of the letter by the claimant. The claimant further averred that Leadway Pension Managers did not draw money from the moon for the Retirement Saving Account (RSA) of the claimant but from the salaries of the claimant paid by the defendant. Trial commenced on 26th January 2016 with the claimant calling two (2) witnesses, the claimant herself who, testifying as CW, adopted her written statement on oath of 30th October 2014 and her additional statement on oath of 10th March 2015 which were marked Exhibits C1 and Exhibit C2 respectively. The claimant as CW proceeded to tender six (6) other exhibits. After the cross examination of the claimant. CW2 Tunde Osinsanya, the Leadway Pension Manager for Calabar who identified Exhibit C4 as their document and went on to testify that they (Leadway Pensions) gave the claimant a Personal Identification Number (PIN) which operates like an account number and that the employers submit the endorsed nominal roll as part of their documentation and based on that data remittances are credited. And that the documents show that the claimant was employed by the defendants and that the last payment/contribution was made in August 2014. Under cross examination CW2 further testified that they conducted enrolment exercises in the defendants premises where staff are enrolled and they are issued PINs based in their letters of appointment, he further testified that he was not aware of any employment racket in the defendants employ, not was he aware that certain persons had their jobs, stating it was the responsibility of the Pension Desk Officer to inform them that the Officers names had been removed, he further testified that the remittances come from the Central Bank of Nigeria and although they run a contributory system as remittances come from Central Bank directly they merely receive funds and mange same. The claimant closed their case. At the close of the claimant’s case the matter was adjourned for four (4) consecutive and separate adjournment (20/4/2016, 21/6/2016, 22/9/2016 and 6/10/2016) for the defendants to open their defence, yet on each adjournment, except 21st June 2016 when neither party put in appearances, the defendant were unable to present their sole witness. The court in furtherance of Order 19 rule 10(3) foreclosed the defendants and the matter was adjourned for final written addresses. The CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS was filed on 23rd November, 2016. Wherein the claimant formulated one sole ISSUE for determination: Whether on the preponderance of evidence, the claimant has established that she is entitled to all claims and relief sought. The Learned Counsel to the claimant Ime Akpan Esq. submitted that defendant stands as a beneficiary of the claimant’s salaries while claimant is denied of her salaries and entitlements which are still running to her benefit but withheld from her. Counsel continued, assuming but without conceding that the claimant’s appointment was revoked, posed the question: “what is the right and the proper procedure to follow”? He answered the question with the case of IHEZUCHUKWU v. UNIVERSITY OF JOS (1990) 4 NWLR (PT. 145) 598, per Wali, JSC; OSISANYA v. AFRIBANK NIG. PLC. (2007) 6 NWLR (PT. 1031) 565; KATTO v. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (PT. 607) 390 @ 405, PARAS. D-F. It is counsel’s contention that it is immaterial whether the claimant’s appointment was of permanent or temporary basis, the terms must be followed and that it will be outside of the Court’ province to look elsewhere other than the written terms of contract. IHEZUCHUKWU v. UNIVERSITY OF JOS (Supra); KATTO v. CBN (Supra). On the treatment of pleadings not backed up by evidence, counsel relied on the authority of C.B.N. c. OKOJIE (2015) 14 NLR (PT. 1479) 231 @ 239 RATIO 6.And in response to the question whether pleadings can translate into evidence and treatment of pleadings not supported by evidence, counsel relied on the case of NEPA v. AUWAL (2011) 5 NWLR (PT. 571 @ 580 RATIO 12; OPKOKO v. COMMUNITY BANK LTD. V. IGWE (2013) 15 NWLR (PT. 1376) 167 @ 171 RATIO 5. The DEFENDANT’S FINAL ADDRESS was filed on 30th November, 2016 and dated same day. Wherein the defendants raised the sole ISSUE Whether the claimant has made out a case to be entitled to her claims. Learned Counsel to the defendant F. N. Nachamada Esq submitted that claimant’s reliefs 1 & 2 are declaratory reliefs, reliefs 3 & 4 are Orders arising from reliefs 1 7 2, relief 5 is cost of litigation while relief 6 is an alternative relief to reliefs 1-5, thus, claimant’s claims are basically declaratory in nature. That declaratory reliefs are not granted on the weakness of the defence but rather on the strength of the claimant’s case. He submitted that declarations are not made even on the basis of admission by the adverse party. AKPAGHER v. GBUVUNGU (2015) 1 NWLR (PT. 1440) 209; ADEDEJI v. BELLO (2015) NWLR (PT. 1454) 104; NHURA v. ACHIKWU (2015) 9 NWLR (PT. 1463) 47; S.P.D.C.N. LTD. V. AJUWA 92015) 14 NWLR (PT. 1480) 403 C.A.; OMISORE v. AREGBESOLA (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1482) 205. Defence Counsel argued that since claimant did not call any witness to testify, she is not automatically entitled to the reliefs claimed as she must adduce credible evidence to discharge the onus of proof placed upon her by law. SEC. 132 EVIDENCE ACT, 2011. Defendant Counsel also submitted that by virtue of SECTIONS 36 & 37 of the TRADE DISPUTES ACT, 2004; SEC. 12 (2) (b) of the NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT ACT, 2006; ORDER 19 RULE 9 (ii) of the NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT RULES, all frontloaded documents are deemed admitted unless specifically objected to. KURT SEVERINSEN v. EMERGING MARKETS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD. (2012) 27 NLLR (PT. 78) 374 @ 454; MUHAMAD v. B/U.K. (2014) 42 NLLR (PT. 131) 382 @ 418 – 419, PARAS. F-A; CHIAGOROM v. DIAMOND BANK (2014) 44 NLLR (Pp. 140) 401 @ 462 – 463. Counsel to the defendant further submitted that the fact that the defendant is created by an Act of the national Assembly does not mean that any employment with the defendant enjoys statutory flavour. IKHILE v. F.A.A.N. (2014) 44 NLLR (PT. 139) 164 @ 192 – 193, PARAS. B-A; PHCN v. OFFOELLO (2014) 41 NLLR (PT. 126) 167 @ 208, PARAS. H-B. It is counsel’s submission that for there to be a binding contract, there must be consensus ad idem, meeting of minds of the parties, in the absence of which, there is no binding contract. Thus, for binding contract to exist, there must be an offer by one party which was unequivocally accepted by the other party. GRIEF (V.L) CONTAINERS PLC. V. O.P. & IND. LTD. (2015) 8 NWLR (PT. 1461) PARAS. A-C; OGUNDALU v. MACJOB (2015) 8 NWLR (PT. 1460) 96 @ 133, PARAS. C-D; MTN (NIG.) COMM. LTD. V. CC INV. LTD. (2015) 7 NWLR (PT. 1459) 437 @ 465, PARAS. B-C. Submitting further that since the defendant stated that it did not authorize the making of Exhibit 3 and denied same in its Statement of Defence, the onus is on the claimant to prove by credible evidence that the defendant either made or authorized the making thereof, failure, which the claimant’s case must fail. ANIEKAN REUBEN UDOIDIONG & 4 ORS. V. LOCAL GOVT. SERVICE COMMISSION, AKWA IBOM STATE & ANOR. Unreported Suit No: NICN/UY/2012) delivered on 28/03/2014 by Justice Auwal Ibrahim. With regard to the claimant submission that there was no evidence adduced by the defendant and that the pleadings of the defendant in its Statement of Defence, having not been supported by evidence is deemed abandoned citing C.B.N. v. OKOJIE (2015) 14 NLR (SIC) (PT. 1479) 231 @ 239 RATIO 6; NEPA v. AUWAL (2015) 5 NWLR (PT. 1241) 572 @ 580; OKPOKO COMMUNITY BANK LTD. V. IGWE (2013) 15 NWLR (PT. 1376) 167 @ 171; Defence counsel submitted that these decisions did not emanate from cases decided by the National Industrial Court. On the 6th December 2016, parties adopted their final written address and adumbrated their respective position. This matter was thereafter adjourned for this judgement. Court’s Decision I have carefully summarized the evidence of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this Judgement and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is the issue as formulated by the claimant: Whether on the preponderance of evidence, the claimant has established that she is entitled to all claims and relief sought. Before delving in to the merits of this case it is necessary that the court address the submission of claimant counsel of the import of the defendant pleadings not having been adopted in court and that as there was no evidence adduced by the defendant in support of their pleadings Statement of Defence, such pleadings are deemed abandoned. The position of the law in this court is borne out from the case of See MR. THOMAS OLUKAYOKE & ORS Vs. TIMBUKTU MEDIA LTD. (unreported) NICN/LA/25/201 1 delivered 6th March 2013. As the effect of the failure of a party to call evidence in defence of a claim is that he is presumed to have admitted the case made against him by the other party and the trial court has no choice than to accept the unchallenged and uncontroverted case place before it by the claimant. See IFETA Vs. SHELL PETROLLEUM DEVELOPMET CORPORATION OF NIGERIA [2006] Vol. 6 MJSC, CONSOLIDATED RES LTD. Vs. ABOFAR VENTURES NIG. [2007] 6NWLR (Pt. 1030) 221 and OKOLIE Vs. MARINHO [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1002) 316. But this, however, does not mean an automatic victory for the Claimant because he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendants case or the fact that there is no defence placed before the court. BENJAMIN BILLE Vs. MULTILINKS LTD. NICN/LA/175/2011 (unreported) delivered 6th July 2012. The absence of evidence by the defence does not exonerate the claimant the burden or proof placed on him. See SECTION 131(1) and (2) Evidence act 2011, OGUNYADE Vs. OSHUNKEYE [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057). The claimant must adduce evidence worthy of belief as evidence does not become credible merely because it is unchallenged. AKALONU Vs. OMOKARO [2003]8NWLR (Pt.821) 190. Uncontroverted evidence does not in any way take way the duty imposed on the claimant to prove her case in accordance with the minimum evidence rule. This, of course accords with the minima evidential requirement, which is to the effect that a plaintiff cannot assume that he is entitled to automatic judgement just because the other party did not adduce evidence before the trial court as held in LAWRENCE AZENABOR Vs. BAYEREO UNIVERSITY KANO [2011] 25 NLLR (PT. 70) CA at 69 and OGUNYADE Vs. OSUNKEYE supra at 247”. Mindful of this position of law I shall now proceed to deal with the merits of this case in order to determine whether the minimum evidentiary value/burden of proof has been met I shall need to look at the evidence before the court against the reliefs sought by the Claimant The rule of thumb in evaluating the claimants evidence is as follows;- “The law is that the facts elicited from the evidence of the plaintiff should so preponderate in favour of the claims that the court should on balance decide in his favour'' Per PATS-ACHOLONU, J.S.C in OBASI BROTHERS MERCHANT COMPANY LTD. Vs. MERCHANT BANK OF AFRICA SECURITIES LTD.(2005) LPELR-2153(SC) (P. 9, paras. A-B). The case before this court is that the claimant pleads that he was employed by the defendants. The claimant’s reliefs are as follows; 1. A declaration that the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant is still subsisting, same having not been terminated or determined. 2. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to all her salaries, emoluments and other benefits that may have accrued to her office and status in the service of the defendant. 3. An order of court directing the defendant to compute release and pay over to the claimant all her salaries, emoluments and other fringe benefits that may have accrued to the claimant in her position in service of the defendant from August, 2010 till date and continuously so until her appointment is determined or she is retired in the service of the defendant in accordance with the law. 4. An order that the defendant pay interest on held over salaries, emoluments and other fringe benefits at 25% prevailing bank interest rate per month to the claimant. 5. Cost of this action to be assessed at #200,000.00. 6. In the alternative, the claimant claim against the defendant #15 Million general damages for breach of contract of employment. In order to properly ascertain whether the claimant is entitled to these reliefs the court is required to determine the nature of the claimant’s employment relationship with the defendant. This is so because the answer to most of the issues raised in this suit will depend on the nature of the contract of employment between the parties. The Supreme Court in the case of LONGE Vs. FBN LTS [2010] LPELR 1793 SC held that “….there are three categories of employment (a) Purely Master and Servant relationship (b) Servants who hold their office at the pleasure of the employer (c) Employment with statutory flavour….” The position of the law is “that an employment is said to have statutory flavour if the employment is directly governed or regulated by statute or a section(s) of a statute delegates power to an authority or body to make regulations or conditions of service as the case may be”, UJAM V. IMT [2007] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1019) 470 at 492 B – C. Or where a set of prescribed “Rules govern the service” see Uwa JCA in FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTRE IDO EKITI & ANOR Vs. ISAAC OLUKAYIDE OLAJIDE [2011] LPELR 4150 CA para C In SULIEMAN ADAMU Vs. MOLAMMMAD SANI TAKORI & ORS [2009] LPELR 3593 CA Jega JCA held that it is clear that the sole determining factor in determining a public servant is the mode of appointment referring to DADA Vs. ADEYEYE [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt. 920) 1 at p 19-20. In determining whether the respondent’s appointment is statutorily flavoured or not …..the courts have held that recourse should be had to the contends of the letter of appointment FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTRE IDO EKITI & ORS. Vs. OMIDIORA KOLAWOLE O. [2011] LPELR 4149 CA page 15 para B. In the instant case the claimant has tendered Exhibit C3 reproduced below: UNIVERSITY OF CLALBAR PROF. BASSEY O. ASUQUO DR. (Mrs) Julia D. Omang OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR Our Ref UC/REST/81 Date 20th July 2010 Glory Etim Udo Dear Sir/Madam OFFER OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT With reference to your application for appointment in the University of Calabar. I am pleased to inform you that the Vice Chancellor has approved an offer of appointment to you as MESSENGER/CLEANER on salary of N293, 049.96 per annum i.e. CONTSS 1 Step 1 with effect from the date you assume duty. I wish to emphasize that this temporary offer is made to enable you start work at the University while arrangements are being made to interview you for a permanent appointment. During this period, the appointment may be terminated by one month’s notice on either side or a month salary in lieu of notice. Also note, that if you have previously been dismissed, rationalized or retired from the service of the University, the appointment automatically becomes null and void, If this offer interests you, please kindly confirm your acceptance in writing within one month of your receipt of this letter and report to the Establishment Division of the Registry (Junior) for further instructions. Congratulations. Yours faithfully (Signed.) Dr.(Mrs,) Julia D. Omang Registrar By law it is only a statutory employment that has that special protection and the characteristic of such appointment have been well settled by numerous authorities. I agree with the defendant that the mere fact that the defendant is a statutory creation does not automatically create a statutory employment for all or any its employees. In the case of P. O. U. IYASE v. UNIVERSITY OF BENIN TEACHING HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt.643), pg. 47” it was held that “ the contractual relationship of master and servant is said to have a statutory flavour if that relationship was created and governed by statute or regulations derived from a statute. The fact that the respondent is a statutory body does not mean that the conditions of service of its employees must be presumed to be of a special character thereby putting their relationship over and above that of the ordinary or mere master and servant. It (the relationship) must be ascertained through the pleadings and particularly evidence adduced thereon that there are rules and regulations which govern the employment so as to give it a status of particular tenure.. "Per IBIYEYE, J.C.A. (P. 18, paras. B-E). Also in FAKUADE V. O.A.U.T.H (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47 at 63; (1993) 6 SCNJ 35 at 44. It was held that "the fact that the Respondent is the creation of statute does not elevate all its employees to that status or that the status of master and servant is no longer existent or that their employment or determination of their appointment must necessarily have a statutory flavor. "An employment is said to have a statutory flavour when the appointment is protected by statute or laid down regulations made to govern the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee.." UDU V. PETROLEUM EQUALISATION FUND (MANAGEMENT) BOARD & ANOR (2010) LPELR-3824(CA) Per Odili, JCA (P. 17, paras A-B). I find that there is nothing in Exhibit C3 that resonates or is equivalent or alludes to a relationship covered or governed by statute In addition in IYASE CASE (Supra) the Court of Appeal did hold that, “.....if on the other hand the contract of service is determinable by agreement between the parties, such contract cannot be said to have statutory flavour”. Clearly, By the last line of paragraph 1 of Exhibit C3, and the lack of any reference to a statute, or regulation or to any body charged with the responsibility of providing terms and condition or even the public service rules and from the contents of Exhibit C3, I find that the relationship creates is at best one of Master and Servant. In ANIFOWOSHE v. WEMA BANK PLC (2015) LPELR-24811(CA) It appears there had been an employment contract between the parties in which the terms and conditions of employment of the employee are provided. UNION BANK OF NIG PLC VS EDIT (1993) 4 NWLR PT.287. Terms and conditions of contract of employment are the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination and should, therefore, be pleaded by the employee who is aggrieved. The contract is personal to the employee. See NITEL PLC VS. AKWA (2006) 2 NWLR PT 964 PG.391, NIG GAS CO LTD VS DUDUSOLA (2005) 18 NWLR PT.957 PG.292, AMODU VS. AMODE (1990) 5 NWLR PT.150 PG 356. A claimant who seeks a declaration that the termination of his appointment was wrongful among other claims must prove the following material facts namely: 1. That he is an employee of the defendant. 2. The terms and conditions of his employment, 3. The way and manner, and by whom he can be removed. ANIFOWOSHE v. WEMA BANK PLC (Supra). The claimant has not presented the court with any Terms or Conditions which govern her appointment beyond Exhibit C3 and C3 does not contain any additional terms or condition of the employment, except termination by either party with one months salary/ one months salary in lieu and nullification if previously dismissed etc., neither does it refer to the existence of any Terms or condition to which the claimant is expected to be bound. Furthermore by Exhibit C3 the claimant is a temporary Staff, and Section 318 of the 1999 CFRN defines a Temporary Officer to mean staff employed temporarily in an established post on non pensionable terms. Learned Author Odabi Osaretin Kingsley in his book Case Law Annotation of Public Service Rules in Nigeria© 2013 Evergreen Overseas Publication Benin City, at page 21 has this to say about Temporary staff. ‘Depending on the term of employment an employee as temporary staff is a the mercy of his ot her employer to determine whether or not he is suitable for the employment.” referring to LCRI Vs> MOHAMMED [2005] 11 NWLR (Pt. 935) 1 at 26-27 para F-H. In addition to being a temporary staff the claimant is further more unconfirmed and by law “An unconfirmed staff cannot claim the benefits that inure in a statutory employment” see also MOHAMMED M. ALHASSAN V. AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA & ORS [2009] LPELR 8138 CA, IGWILO VS. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2007) 14 NWLR (PT. 1054) 393. That being the case and the appointment of the claimant being one of an employer / employee commonly referred to as master/servant the law is that it is only a Statutory employment that can be declared illegal, unlawful and null and void {Add authority} and it is only in this category of employment that the court can hold subsisting in the event of a wrongful termination {Add authority}. Reliefs 1 and 3 therefore fails. Relief 2 is for a declaration that the claimant is entitled to all her salaries, emoluments and other benefits that may have accrued to her office and status in the service of the defendant. in declaratory reliefs the claimant is required to prove entitlement to the declaration that the only document before the court referencing any salary or entitlement is Exhibit C3, which puts the claimants salary at N293, 049.96, yet there is nothing before the court to indicate that she claimant was ever paid this amount. The courts view the employer’s obligation in respect of payment of wages as a key element of the employment contract. “in reality it is difficult to exaggerate the crucial importance of pay in any contract of employment. In simple terms, the employee offers his skills and efforts in exchange for his pay: that is the understanding at the heart of the contractual arrangement between him and his employer”… See the case that of OVERLAND AIRWAYS LIMITED v. AFOLAYAN (2015) 52 NLLR (PT. 174) 214 NIC @ 224. The evidence of Exhibit C8 emanating for the Pension Fund Manager is of no probative value being an unsigned document, By NWANCHO V. ELEM [2004] ALL FWLR (PT. 225) 107, AIKI V. IDOWU [2006] ALL FWLR (PT. 293) 361; [2006] 9 NWLR (PT. 984) 47, SARAI V. HARUNA [2008] 23 WRN 130, any document which ought to be signed and is not signed renders its authorship and authenticity doubtful. And by GLOBAL SOAPS & DETERGENT IND. LTD V. NAFDAC [2011] ALL FWLR (PT. 599) 1025 AT 1047 and UDO & ORS V. ESSIEN & ORS [2014] LPELR-22684(CA), it is the law that unsigned and undated document has no evidential value, hence court is unable to rely on it as evidence that deductions were made from the defendants into the claimant’s pension fund Account. The testimony of CW2 that the claimant payment were made under the centrally controlled system by the Central Bank totally repudiates the role of the employer under the Pension Reform Act and more particularly denies the claimant the opportunity of inferring employment. Exhibits C6 and C7 are of no import in determining the existence of employment. In a situation where the defendants categorically and denies authorship of Exhibit C3 the claimant would be required to prove in fact that she actually worked for the defendants for the five months she stated in cross examination. Considering the apt, precise, succinct, full and complete denial of the defendant in the defendants processes which clearly attacked the veracity or authenticity of details of the claimants claim, the claimant would be required to present evidence that she actually worked for the said period of five months in order to be entitled to the salary, this the claimant could have done by requesting the tendering of the movement or attendance register, or evidence of a witness to support the fact that she worked, Having said that the defendants in denying having issued Exhibit C3 pleaded that the defendants discovered an illegal employment racket in October 2014, the defendant pleaded that following the discovery they revoked and recalled all the letters of employment, this presupposes that there was in fact an employment albeit unauthorized which ended 25th October 2014. Exhibit C3 was dated 20th July 2010 yet no evidence is before the court as to when the claimant started work. Could she have worked from 2010 till 2014 with no salary ever being paid. I find that the claimant has not satisfied the court that she did in fact work of the claimant to justify the court granting relief 3. This relief also fails. Relief 4; An order that the defendant pay interest on held over salaries, emoluments and other fringe benefits at 25% prevailing bank interest rate per month to the claimant. The claimant has not established a claim for salaries afortori interest, be that as it may this court does not award pre judgement interest. See KURT SEVERINSEN V. EMERGING MARKETS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES LIMITED [2012] 27 NLLR (PT. 78) 374, MISS EBERE UKOJI V. STANDARD ALLIANCE LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/48/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on March 26, 2014 and MISS ODIETE HOPE OGAGA V. JOPA ENERGY LTD UNREPORTED SUIT NO. NICN/LA/408/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on March 26, 2014. This relief also fails. Relief 5, is for cost of N200,000.00, this being an incidental relief is contingent on the substantive reliefs which have all failed this relief therefore also fails. I find that the claimant has not proved her claim so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought, this suit lacks merit and is hereby struck out. I make no order as to costs. .................................................... Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba Judge